www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholics - why are you in union with Rome?

Well, it is pretty clear in scripture that Christ gives the keys to Peter and to Peter alone. Peter alone he calls the Rock upon which he builds his Church--his whole Church, East and West. Yes, Christ founded one Church. And yes, Christ build the Eastern Church on Peter as well, that is on the papacy. There is zero evidence in scripture that Christ singles out anyone else in the way he singles out Peter. And in many cases Christ asks a question of the apostles and Peter responds in their place.

The Orthodox according to the See of Peter are members of a wounded church for their separation from Peter. As for Roman error, don't take Rome's word for it. It is Christ himself who says that Rome is preserved from error. Thus, Orthodox claims are not in opposition to Rome but are in opposition to the claims of Christ.

John, you seem shocked that Catholics have a scripturally based critique of Orthodoxy, while you are perfectly comfortable going on and on about Roman error and abdication. Ironic.

Dear Arthur,

Since you mention, where in the New Testament does Christ mention Rome as being preserved from error?

If so, why would St Robert Bellarmine propose conditions under which Catholics not only can but are obliged to oppose the Pope (if he would try to destroy the Church, preach heresy etc.).

If the Pope cannot be in error, why would a Saint of the Church propose such "in case of" situations?

Alex

Arthur,

Read the New Testament more closely. Christ gave the keys to all of the apostles. Also, read the fathers and you will see that all of the bishops of the Church are successors of St. Peter and Pope Gregory the Great points out that the See of Peter exists and rules in three places (Antioch, Alexandria, & Rome), not just Rome.

Joe

Actually, Joe, the Keys are given to Peter and to Peter alone. Binding and loosing are given to all the apostles, but the Keys and "rock upon which I will build my church" are exclusively Petrine.

Pope Gregory does mention that Antioch and Alexandria are also of Petrine foundation, but he does not in any way give specific papal prerogatives to the other sees. This was nice flowery language not juridical language. One has to understand Roman diplomatic language versus Roman legal language to discern the difference. Perhaps being Greek the easterners misunderstood. These are tired arguments based on wishful thinking.

Arthur,

I honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to go through this whole argument (yet again!) that seems to show up on a thread every two or three months. I don't see the point in wrangling over this. You and I will just have to agree that we interpret these texts very differently.

Joe

Arthur you said:

I say...
yes but we enjoy your posting anyway...

Arthur,

As of yet you have posted absolutely NOTHING from Holy Scripture to back up your assertions. And this, even though you have appealed to Holy Scripture form the beginning. Let's see some texts and convincing exegesis.

Jason

Dear Jason,

Let's not go overboard here . . . the point is that scripture is not the only source we can appeal to for St Peter and the Keys. There is Tradition and the praxis of the Church in time etc.

Arthur is zealous and we can most certainly charge him with being overzealous.

St Peter and the Keys, however one interprets them, are there in Scripture and both Catholic and Orthodox Churches have their own experience with nterpretation of them.

We should not pretend that the RC's "do" and the Orthodox "don't" - that is simply not the case.

Alex

Arthur - unfortunately it even took Rome a long time to get to the point where it is "working fine" - it had to take the combined efforts of popes from Leo XIII through Vatican II to open those doors, reiterate the terms of the Union, and we must especially recognize the efforts of the late Holy Father in this regard. We are not there yet, but making progress.

Interference from Latin clergy was unfortunately always present -from the Polish and Lithuanian clergy who maintained the Uniate Catholics were second class and inferior to the Latin Rite immediately after the ratification of the Union by Rome, to the unfortuante decree Cum Data Fuerit in the U.S. which was quite uncanonical and in direct opposition with the agreed statement of communion (Union of Brest) between the UGCC and Rome, namely Article 9 which is most explicit on retaining married clergy. As recently as 1998 the Polish hierarchy was still making protest over the issue of mandatory celibacy of parochial clergy. It just does not pass the laugh test that in Lemko areas nor in the communities of Lublin and other cities which have sizeable Greek Catholic and Orthodox populations that married priests are a scandal. Luckily neither Cardinal Silvestrini nor the Pope acted on Soldano's letter, and certainly Patriarch Lubomyr did not take it seriously.

There is no stipulation nor limitation on restricting diasporal evanglization of the Kyivan Church in the Union of Brest; on the contrary if Rome truly respected the particularity of a Church in full communion it would never be limited in the way of CDF. The UGCC suffered in the US because the Latin bishops did not wish to spend the time and effort to instruct and catechize their faithful regarding these issues; and rather chose to brand our married clergy as "scandalous" and made protest to Rome.

Considering the Tsarist and Soviet oppression against the UGCC, and its incredible witness of martyrdom through both, the UGCC has certainly demonstrated its fidelity - perhaps more than any part of the Latin Church during the Soviet era. Unfortunately Rome has not always reciprocated equally in tolerance and fidelity to the Articles of Communion. An act of communion between two churches is an act of love respecting and celebrating particularity, and not a capitulation of a submissive underling to a supreme master.

That being said, I remain a deacon of my UGCC in full Eucharistic communion with Rome; and where my Patriarch goes there go I as well. Z'Bohom.

You are right, Diak. Rome has made many mistakes and Eastern Catholics have suffered greatly for those mistakes. I think Rome is giving strong indications of backing off, though. And this should eliminate one of the strong objections to reunification.

Alex,

I don't think I'm going overboard. I'm simply repeating what Arthur himself has said. He has claimed several times that Roman primacy is biblical without providing a shred of proof. If he wants to appeal to Tradition, that's fine but his appeal has been to Holy Scripture.

J-

Regarding the original question --- I will be as "patristic" oriented as I can -- relating to the first patriarchs of the Christian Church --- the Apostles of Christ.

RE: Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 1:15-26 It was Peter who spoke up and said that a replacement should be selected to replace Judas. He didn't act alone, but the selection of Mathias was a joint (with all 11) election.

THEN: Acts 2:14-40 After the Descent of the Holy Spirit and the Jews attributed the Apostles' unusual behaviour to drunkeness, it was Peter who spoke out (but again, "stood up with the eleven", not acting unilaterally) and gave the first catechism lesson of the new Church, explaining the Resurrection and the Holy Spirit.

THEN: Acts 10:9-48, 11:1-18 This is about Peter's dream and the resulting decision that the Church should be opened to the uncircumcised Gentiles. He visited Cornelius's household and was so radically bold that he BAPTIZED GENTILES! But this decision was not made in consultation with the other Apostles. But they didn't refuse to follow Peter's decision. Andrew, or Thomas or John or James didn't say "you go ahead but in my Church I will only baptize Jews."

Unfortunately throughout history our fallen humanity has at times triumphed over "the kingdom of Heaven" and we have seen division caused by both the East and the West.

As a member of the Byzantine Church in union with Rome, I believe that there has to be some adhesion of the Churches. They simply can't split because of disagreement and there must be a strong leader who will counsel the dissenters.

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we may try to set ourselves apart. As Pope JPII sadly said, "it is a scandal that the Churches are divided."

When we are before "the fearful judgment seat of God we should hope not to be ashamed of our answer when He asks "What did you do to unite My kingdom?"

Fr. Deacon Paul

Actually Arthur ...

I am a Roman Catholic and for all my life I believed that Matthew should be read as Petine Primacy. On several occasions I defended Peter and the keys and the rock etc...

I have also done extensive biblical research ... but had never turned to examine Matthew 16.

Then one day I noticed that my Roman Catholic interpretation and translation ... was not the same as the original Greek text. Some time after the Vulgate (Jerome) the tense of the original Greek had changed in the Roman Catholic world.

From there .. it was all down hill.

It did not take me long to discover what the keys actually were (Jesus mentions them a few times in the New Testament) and they are not the Davidic Keys as we had been taught. Nor does Jesus give them to Peter at that time (this is in the future - this tense had been changed).

Nor is Peter the only one to receive the 'keys'.

And I also read Agustin's sermon in which he clears up "on this rock" by noting that Jesus called Peter a nick name of "rocky" meaning the Peter was as "rocky" to the "rock" (Jesus) ... in the same way we call someone a 'Christian' is to Christ.

I will not argue the points either (yet again).

I remain a Roman Catholic ... but ... I must admit the truth that Matthew 16 does not mean what the Roman Catholic church claims it means.

As to one final point Arthur... my son will graduate from college in a few days and the master of ceremonies will had him his diploma and say "Steve .. congratulations ... you have graduated." but that will not lead me to believe that out of all students .. my son was singled out for graduation and no one else graduated. Not does it give my son any primacy over all other graduates.

-ray

Ray,

Would you mind creating another thread on what you discovered? I'd like to know what you are referring to, but don't want to clog up this thread.

Thanks.